The year is coming to a close and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has been in the saddle for about a month. What is the new year going to be like for him? I wish a crystal ball was available somewhere to tell us what is in store for him. Some say the justice delivery system in India is facing serious challenges with mounting case pendencies and vacancies in judicial appointments. Some say these are not challenges but symptoms of a grave crisis with justice delivery on a ventilator. Some are optimistic. They believe every institution has its ups and downs and the system will eventually take care of itself. Remember the Emergency, they say. The Supreme Court plumbed the depths but bounced back within a decade or two. It was then hailed a People’s Court. Don’t worry, be happy.Whatever view one takes, there is not a shadow of doubt that the CJI has a massive problem on his hands. If he doesn’t or cannot resolve the issues plaguing justice delivery during his 15-month tenure, we might as well bid a silent goodbye to nyaya or insaaf or justice (pre Macaulay) and the rule of law (post Macaulay). So, here is my wishlist for the CJI.Strengthen every high courtOur Constitution provides that every high court has its own Chief Justice. The administration and management of the high court (and the courts subordinate to it) are in the domain of its Chief Justice, not in the jurisdiction or the domain of the Supreme Court of India. Recently, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court had to remind a bench (as reported online) presided over by the predecessor CJI: “Why should the High Courts be divested of their authority and duty under the Constitution? It is time to strengthen the High Courts, not weaken them. Things have gone too far.” Things have gone too far – wow!So, regardless of whether things have gone too far or not, on top of my wishlist is the strengthening of every high court. Remember, during the Emergency, nine out of 11 high courts stood their ground – only the Supreme Court capitulated. So it is possible to re-strengthen the high courts, but how? It is time to recognise that the high court of a state is the supreme court of that state. The interpretation of every state law should end in finality in the high court. Why should a ‘landlord versus tenant’ dispute in a state come to be decided by the Supreme Court of India. Surely, the high court can resolve it. Should the high court commit an error, including a perverse error, it can correct itself by constituting a larger Bench, as the Supreme Court does. There is really no occasion for any decision interpreting a state law to reach the Supreme Court, unless it has a federal impact. The Supreme Court is essentially a federal court while the high court is a state-specific court. The Supreme Court should retain its federal character by only deciding cases involving the Constitution or parliamentary laws or cases impacting not only the state, but the country. Leave the high courts to interpret state legislation as the supreme court of the state. This will reinvigorate the high courts and collaterally reduce the number of cases travelling to the Supreme Court. Appointment of Chief Justices and transfer of judgesSecond, the CJI and the collegium should forget about appointing a Chief Justice of the high court from outside the state or transferring judges from one high court to another. Please stop it. What purpose does a transfer serve? If a judge is good enough to be the Chief Justice of a high court about which he or she knows nothing, surely, that judge is better equipped to be the Chief Justice of his or her own high court, called the parent court. The idea of an outside Chief Justice was mooted when the collegium system of recommending judges for appointment did not exist. There were, perhaps, allegations of nepotism and favouritism in recommending the appointment of judges since the decision was only of the Chief Justice. Now that the collegium system exists, the chances of bias in recommendations are greatly minimised, though not eliminated. But then, the collegium in the Supreme Court can take care of any allegation of bias.Transfer of judges makes even lesser sense, perhaps no sense at all. Better administration of justice? Is there any evidence that a judge became more judicious after being transferred or evidence that the transferor or transferee high court became more efficient? Let’s get real – there is no such evidence, nor will there ever be such evidence. We do not have any system of evaluating the performance of a judge. All transfers are based on a subjective assessment and, in the recent past, it is believed, some transfers are at the behest of the Union government. If true, it’s the beginning of the end of the judiciary’s independence. Incidentally, one of the objections to the 27th amendment to the Pakistan Constitution is that a judge can be transferred without his consent. Transfer without consent is something quite routine in India. Recall the terrible transfers such as those of Justice Rajiv Shakdher, Justice Akil Kureshi, Justice Muralidhar and many more. Also recall the stubborn refusal by the Union government to transfer a judge despite the plaintive cry of the then CJI. Now, if newspaper reports are to be believed, there is already a mutiny on the deck with a judge of the Madras high court not accepting a transfer to Kerala high court. Such mutinies may increase over time.Transparency in the collegium systemThird, the problem with the collegium system is the opacity in its functioning. The high court collegium is also opaque, but every lawyer in the high court knows what has happened in the collegium meetings. Again, let’s get real and not behave like an ostrich. And what’s wrong if the collegium, whether in the high court or in the Supreme Court is transparent? Hasn’t the Supreme Court borrowed (and sometimes adopted) the principle that sunlight is the best disinfectant? Lets give transparency a chance.Consider the advantages of transparency. If a dummy is recommended for appointment as a High Court judge, it will only shame the high court collegium. If the recommendation is accepted by the Supreme Court collegium, it will shame those learned judges. Therefore, to preserve their self respect and dignity, the collegium in the high court and the Supreme Court will have no option but to act fairly keeping merit and diversity in mind. They will eschew nepotism and favouritism, but more importantly, transparency will prevent the Union government from dominating the appointment process.Some say that India is the only country where judges appoint judges. Not true – the Supreme Court collegium only makes a recommendation to the Union government. Ultimately, it is the Union government which decides whom to appoint. So many recommendations have been rejected by the Union government or kept pending indefinitely. This has resulted in some lawyers withdrawing their consent to be appointed, most famously Aditya Sondhi from Bengaluru. A high court Chief Justice, recommended for appointment to the Supreme Court, had to wait for almost eight months before the government cleared his appointment. So to say that judges appoint judges is false and misleading. In this context, the collegium system of recommendations should not be killed. Rather, it should be improved through sunlight and strengthened. Today, the Central Government appears to be in control of the appointment of judges. So, if a recommendation of the Supreme Court collegium is thrown in the waste paper basket, there is nothing the Supreme Court can do about it. The non-appointment of Saurabh Kirpal to the Delhi high court is an example. With the Union government having seemingly captured the process of appointment of judges, the collegium system is gradually becoming a lame duck. Strengthen it please, otherwise the independence of the judiciary is lost and the last bastion will crumble like a house of cards.The usual suspectsReducing the number of pending cases and appointing judges to the high courts have been talked about, but not acted upon for decades. It is my belief that unless action is taken, starting today, and on a mission mode, these twin problems cannot be sorted out.Consider this: the number of cases pending in the high courts and district courts across the country is increasing by a couple of lakhs every month. This can be verified from the National Judicial Data Grid. There is no way this backlog can be tackled through conventional methods. The judicial posts lying vacant across the country is in the region of 20%. These posts cannot be filled up because adequate courtrooms and infrastructure are lacking, there is a massive shortage of trained staff, the prestige of holding a judicial post is waning with rapid-fire transfers, some competent lawyers are not willing to be appointed judges. The resource crunch will not go away. Increasing the judge strength is possible on paper, not in fact.In addition to the district courts, an average citizen comes in contact with tribunals, consumer forums and other quasi-judicial bodies. The pendency of cases in these adjudicatory authorities (including under the Right to Information Act) is increasing on a daily basis. More than 5 lakhs cases are pending before a handful of tribunals. The plight of children before Juvenile Justice Boards is more than pathetic as recently revealed by the India Justice Report. As it appears, the challenges from pendencies and vacancies are insurmountable and the justice system seems to be crashing. Perhaps, it would be easier to clean the Augean stables. Even so, there are several available solutions. However, they cannot be credibly implemented without the government machinery and the judiciary working in tandem on a mission mode. I doubt if this will ever happen.Madan B. Lokur is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India.